My recent experience with a fighter - and how that flies in the face of the typical line

[MarkB]

I do! As someone who spent the bulk of his PC career as a caster, no less.

There is a large gaping hole between having the convenient option to maximize your effectiveness, like Druids or Wizards do, or being required to maximize your effectiveness, as to keep up with classes far beyond your power level. The former is just fun with numbers, while the latter can come with enormous amounts of stress and peer pressure - something that, you may note, should never be part of a game you play to entertain yourself. It's the reason I shake my head and walk through the dreaded "Are you sure?" routine when a new player wants to play a Samurai in a group already including a Sorcerer, a Cleric, a Binder and a Warblade, then hope as he inevitably shrugs me off that he doesn't leave the table 1-4 sessions later in grave disappointment.

CoDzillas and their kin also have the option to forgo part or all of strategic planning. In the end, 'there is always a level of force against which no tactics can succeed' - And casters can whip pure murder out of their pruny finger just outside the bathroom for the most part, while a Fighter needs, not just optionally benefits from, his equipment close at all times, feat chains that don't screw him over, tactical feats, PrCs, to take his surroundings into account, to know grapple and AoO rules from the inside out to keep the game running, good distribution of physical stats and Gods know what else.

Your don't have to go over any of those fancy lists to play your Druid in a high-combat campaign. You do that because you like to, it's not some sort of requirement. Playing a Druid without your self-imposed challenge is a no-brainer. All you really need is Natural Spell and a decent Knowledge(Nature) check to stay relevant, while a Fighter goes through constant struggles to achieve a mere fraction of the same.

So, the conventional wisdom is that Fighter = "simple to play but falls behind fast in effectiveness", whilst your experience is "goes through loads of complex-to-play contortions in order to not fall behind quite so much".

Basically, the only difference is that you're deliberately choosing to struggle and strive like mad in your attempts to keep up, whilst others accept the power gap in exchange for the simplicity in play.

 

[Bullgrit]

You choose to take on four! classes in the same character, and then complain that it's complicated? And this is a surprise?

Bullgrit

 

[Grogg of the North]

I play a barbarian in my current game. I have heroforge sheets for when I'm normal, raging, enlarged (via item), and enraged and large! On top of that are a bunch of hand scribbled notes for adjusting my attacks since we have, at least, hero's feast active.

While it's crunchy with numbers I at least don't have to go "Wait, I think that spell is in Complete Divine not Complete Arcane ... no ... is it in Adventurer?" and hold up the table. Iterative attacks take long enough as it is.

 

[Dozen]

Basically, the only difference is that you're deliberately choosing to struggle and strive like mad in your attempts to keep up, whilst others accept the power gap in exchange for the simplicity in play.

Well, yes! Me, and the OP, since he plays in a campaign high on combat. In a campaign designed for classes about the same level as a Fighter, I wouldn't bother to optimize unless I felt like it, either. In that situation, the pressure I mentioned is not present. On the other hand, a campaign designed for, say, a Rogue's level or above is challenging enough for you to consider how you'll fare compared to your peers, and, while we're at it, the needs of other members, who probably don't deserve to carry you around in the dungeon like a malign growth. The overwhelming majority come to play the game, not to babysit a self-absorbed player who couldn't be bothered to provide at the very least something akin to a net benefit to the group. Developing a character gung-ho when the situation warrants for careful planning screws the entire table over.

 

[Sadrik]

I am not one of the ones that thinks that fighter types are a complete waste of space. They are very effective my character did the most damage in our party by a good measure. There were just so many modifiers that were accounted for I felt like my numbers were never really static enough with buffs coming and going both from my own character and from the casters (primarily the cleric).

boots of speed or haste
flanking/charge
enlarge person
bull's strength
rage (HP and attack modifiers and save modifiers and AC modifiers) - we house ruled the rage death trap too
dervish dance (did not use this one that much, rage was better)
fatigue (very common condition for this character)
bless
power attack (extremely rarely done)
combat expertise (extremely rarely done)
cleave
iterative attack at -5
animated shield
dodge
mobility
sneak attack
environmental effects concealment, slippery ground etc)
debuffs (ray of enfeeblement, poison, a will save )
durations
conditions (too many to list)

These are really not all that different from the types of thing most melee players go through. I think the fighter types are so important to keeping the baddies off everyone. They take a tremendous beating and if your party is not supporting them with buffs and healing non-stop it means death for them and possible the whole party. At least in the crazy Age of Wurms set up. When I came back with my wizard I am resigned to buffing our fighter-type, died again too, I think he is a barbarian now. Displacement, stoneskin, and haste are the big ones but everything else I can pump him up with, I will. No selfish caster from me, I've been there.

So with casters most of their stuff happens out of play, spell selection etc. I also am a good caster player and print out monsters I typically summon, I print out odd spells that are not in the core books. I minimize my look ups as much as possible. This is vastly different from the fighter-types. They have nothing to select out of combat, all their choice happen in combat and they mess around with numbers non-stop whether HP or AC or saves or Attack bonuses. Some people don't mind those computations much, I though, prefer to have all my stuff worked out in advance so I can take my turns quickly that was not often the case with all the calculations and considerations round to round.

 

[Dozen]

I am not one of the ones that thinks that fighter types are a complete waste of space...

I hear you. Anyone who thinks that deserves a good whack in the head. Umm, in game. Fighters are an integral part of D&D, a good portion of caster tactics rely on a melee warrior fighting the good fight together back to back, and tactics against casters almost always do. A good party always has one of them, often as their leader. And that's far from surprising, as they tend to be more savvy into tactical insights than magic users.

 

[PureGoldx58]

While I do not disagree that melee characters are useful in a party if not essential, I still don't see how any of that (save dervish dance and sneak attack) is exclusive to a martial class, my point is all of that can and does come up with casters via summon monster, Druid pets, thralls, dominated companions.

Just because you might not have a lot of options with your wizard doesn't mean that is the only way to build it. Bards alone without any multiclassing have a lot to keep track of and can also be melee combatants.

All of this said I prefer to play skill monkeys with debuffs and a trinket for every situation myself.
In terms of combat I would say that aside from raw damage output martial classes generally fall behind casters, and that point is one I will agree with.

Edit : If you include tome of battle I would say the last thing I said becomes a lie, but I always forget about that book.

 

[Dozen]

is exclusive to a martial class, my point is all of that can and does come up with casters via summon monster, Druid pets, thralls, dominated companions.

I wouldn't say 'exclusive' either. More along the lines of 'preferable'.

Just because you might not have a lot of options with your wizard doesn't mean that is the only way to build it.

Oh man, don't I know. The people I originally played with were so self-serving, I didn't trust them to do anything for me. Not that I trust people to begin with.
So I dreamed up a Wizard who didn't only have the potential to do everything - I wanted a party-in-a-can without spending my precious dayly spellslots. Around 15th level, I nailed it. Can't wait to play him again.
Back on topic, it's still only optional, even if I like to do it. Any Figher is in for a letdown, lacking a proper build plan. My cudos to everyone who has the patience for full fighters who only use magical gear and nothing else.

In terms of combat I would say that aside from raw damage output martial classes generally fall behind casters, and that point is one I will agree with.

So you're saying you agree Fighters, Samurais and the like fall behind effectiveness - but at the same time you can't see why they might need convoluted builds to keep up with the rest of the party? I don't follow.

 

[Sadrik]

While I do not disagree that melee characters are useful in a party if not essential, I still don't see how any of that (save dervish dance and sneak attack) is exclusive to a martial class, my point is all of that can and does come up with casters via summon monster, Druid pets, thralls, dominated companions.

I agree with you. they are a part of the things that any melee character deals with in a game of 3e. It was just a little shocking after having played casters and then playing a fighter type. Also a summoning caster deals with many of these things however not nearly as in flux as this character was. I think the barbarian rage coupled with fatigue were the biggest bonus/penalty culprits. My point in this thread though is that the fighter types are not as easy to play as some think they are. Basic melee is not a part of 3e. I also think the Age of Wurms campaign also assumes twinked characters. Our characters are very twinked, except for our one melee guy and he has died 6 times (3 or 4 knights, 2 barbarians, and a paladin)... hmm. The modules are very hard on the PCs and it feels like encounters are extremely tough, so this could also be a factor in how the fighter types are so very hard to play...

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I don't like simple characters. The only melee-based character I've invested in in the last few years was a Shifter Totemist, which had a good deal of book keeping. Versatility comes with the price of more to keep track of.